Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 891 | control, N = 441 | treatment, N = 451 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 89 | 50.11 ± 13.07 (25 - 74) | 49.93 ± 13.34 (25 - 74) | 50.29 ± 12.94 (28 - 73) | 0.897 |
gender | 89 | 0.439 | |||
f | 64 (72%) | 30 (68%) | 34 (76%) | ||
m | 25 (28%) | 14 (32%) | 11 (24%) | ||
occupation | 89 | 0.776 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (4.5%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 10 (11%) | 5 (11%) | 5 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (6.7%) | 3 (6.8%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
other | 2 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
part_time | 15 (17%) | 7 (16%) | 8 (18%) | ||
retired | 22 (25%) | 10 (23%) | 12 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (4.5%) | 2 (4.5%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
student | 2 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.2%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
unemploy | 24 (27%) | 14 (32%) | 10 (22%) | ||
marital | 89 | 0.667 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
divore | 10 (11%) | 7 (16%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
in_relationship | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
married | 22 (25%) | 10 (23%) | 12 (27%) | ||
none | 49 (55%) | 23 (52%) | 26 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.4%) | 2 (4.5%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
widow | 3 (3.4%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
edu | 89 | 0.662 | |||
bachelor | 26 (29%) | 9 (20%) | 17 (38%) | ||
diploma | 19 (21%) | 12 (27%) | 7 (16%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.4%) | 2 (4.5%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
postgraduate | 7 (7.9%) | 4 (9.1%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
primary | 5 (5.6%) | 2 (4.5%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 10 (11%) | 6 (14%) | 4 (8.9%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 17 (19%) | 8 (18%) | 9 (20%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.2%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
fam_income | 89 | 0.933 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (4.5%) | 1 (2.3%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (5.6%) | 2 (4.5%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (5.6%) | 2 (4.5%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (3.4%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (4.5%) | 3 (6.8%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
20001_above | 15 (17%) | 7 (16%) | 8 (18%) | ||
2001_4000 | 14 (16%) | 9 (20%) | 5 (11%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (11%) | 4 (9.1%) | 6 (13%) | ||
6001_8000 | 9 (10%) | 5 (11%) | 4 (8.9%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (7.9%) | 3 (6.8%) | 4 (8.9%) | ||
below_2000 | 13 (15%) | 7 (16%) | 6 (13%) | ||
medication | 89 | 79 (89%) | 40 (91%) | 39 (87%) | 0.739 |
onset_duration | 89 | 15.13 ± 10.76 (0 - 56) | 16.47 ± 11.97 (1 - 56) | 13.82 ± 9.38 (0 - 35) | 0.248 |
onset_age | 89 | 34.98 ± 13.99 (14 - 64) | 33.46 ± 12.73 (14 - 58) | 36.47 ± 15.12 (15 - 64) | 0.314 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 891 | control, N = 441 | treatment, N = 451 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 89 | 3.06 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 3.09 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.02 ± 1.16 (1 - 5) | 0.786 |
recovery_stage_b | 89 | 17.94 ± 2.66 (9 - 23) | 17.75 ± 2.83 (9 - 23) | 18.13 ± 2.50 (13 - 23) | 0.500 |
ras_confidence | 89 | 29.97 ± 4.81 (19 - 43) | 29.41 ± 4.48 (19 - 40) | 30.51 ± 5.10 (20 - 43) | 0.282 |
ras_willingness | 89 | 12.17 ± 1.94 (7 - 15) | 12.00 ± 1.90 (9 - 15) | 12.33 ± 1.99 (7 - 15) | 0.422 |
ras_goal | 89 | 17.54 ± 2.88 (12 - 24) | 17.36 ± 2.90 (12 - 24) | 17.71 ± 2.89 (12 - 24) | 0.573 |
ras_reliance | 89 | 13.10 ± 2.76 (8 - 20) | 12.95 ± 2.59 (8 - 18) | 13.24 ± 2.94 (8 - 20) | 0.623 |
ras_domination | 89 | 9.87 ± 2.35 (3 - 15) | 10.34 ± 2.30 (3 - 15) | 9.40 ± 2.32 (3 - 14) | 0.058 |
symptom | 89 | 30.58 ± 9.70 (14 - 56) | 32.14 ± 9.88 (14 - 55) | 29.07 ± 9.38 (15 - 56) | 0.136 |
slof_work | 89 | 22.69 ± 4.87 (10 - 30) | 22.50 ± 4.42 (13 - 30) | 22.87 ± 5.32 (10 - 30) | 0.725 |
slof_relationship | 89 | 25.64 ± 5.91 (11 - 35) | 25.00 ± 5.94 (13 - 35) | 26.27 ± 5.88 (11 - 35) | 0.315 |
satisfaction | 89 | 20.30 ± 6.80 (5 - 32) | 18.75 ± 6.46 (5 - 29) | 21.82 ± 6.86 (5 - 32) | 0.032 |
mhc_emotional | 89 | 11.09 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 10.64 ± 3.44 (3 - 17) | 11.53 ± 4.00 (4 - 18) | 0.260 |
mhc_social | 89 | 14.85 ± 5.26 (6 - 30) | 15.00 ± 5.27 (7 - 30) | 14.71 ± 5.31 (6 - 26) | 0.797 |
mhc_psychological | 89 | 21.93 ± 5.91 (6 - 36) | 21.43 ± 5.43 (10 - 36) | 22.42 ± 6.37 (6 - 36) | 0.433 |
resilisnce | 89 | 16.53 ± 4.50 (6 - 27) | 16.11 ± 4.25 (6 - 24) | 16.93 ± 4.74 (7 - 27) | 0.393 |
social_provision | 89 | 13.70 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 13.25 ± 2.32 (8 - 20) | 14.13 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 0.138 |
els_value_living | 89 | 17.08 ± 2.89 (5 - 25) | 16.43 ± 2.40 (12 - 22) | 17.71 ± 3.21 (5 - 25) | 0.036 |
els_life_fulfill | 89 | 12.53 ± 3.30 (4 - 20) | 11.48 ± 3.04 (5 - 17) | 13.56 ± 3.26 (4 - 20) | 0.003 |
els | 89 | 29.61 ± 5.60 (9 - 45) | 27.91 ± 4.62 (18 - 36) | 31.27 ± 6.02 (9 - 45) | 0.004 |
social_connect | 89 | 26.92 ± 9.02 (8 - 48) | 27.84 ± 8.14 (8 - 45) | 26.02 ± 9.82 (8 - 48) | 0.345 |
shs_agency | 89 | 14.40 ± 4.82 (3 - 24) | 13.57 ± 4.43 (3 - 21) | 15.22 ± 5.10 (3 - 24) | 0.106 |
shs_pathway | 89 | 16.46 ± 3.87 (4 - 24) | 15.93 ± 3.72 (8 - 24) | 16.98 ± 3.99 (4 - 23) | 0.205 |
shs | 89 | 30.87 ± 8.24 (7 - 47) | 29.50 ± 7.77 (13 - 45) | 32.20 ± 8.55 (7 - 47) | 0.123 |
esteem | 89 | 12.64 ± 1.53 (10 - 18) | 12.93 ± 1.56 (10 - 18) | 12.36 ± 1.46 (10 - 16) | 0.076 |
mlq_search | 89 | 15.08 ± 3.21 (3 - 21) | 14.93 ± 3.07 (6 - 21) | 15.22 ± 3.37 (3 - 21) | 0.672 |
mlq_presence | 89 | 13.46 ± 4.11 (3 - 21) | 13.23 ± 3.70 (5 - 21) | 13.69 ± 4.51 (3 - 21) | 0.599 |
mlq | 89 | 28.54 ± 6.47 (6 - 42) | 28.16 ± 5.80 (12 - 40) | 28.91 ± 7.10 (6 - 42) | 0.586 |
empower | 89 | 19.29 ± 4.08 (6 - 28) | 18.77 ± 3.65 (11 - 24) | 19.80 ± 4.45 (6 - 28) | 0.237 |
ismi_resistance | 89 | 14.69 ± 2.61 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.18 (11 - 19) | 15.00 ± 2.97 (5 - 20) | 0.253 |
ismi_discrimation | 89 | 11.44 ± 3.07 (5 - 19) | 12.41 ± 2.81 (5 - 19) | 10.49 ± 3.05 (5 - 19) | 0.003 |
sss_affective | 89 | 10.10 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 10.61 ± 3.52 (3 - 18) | 9.60 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 0.196 |
sss_behavior | 89 | 9.73 ± 3.92 (3 - 18) | 10.41 ± 4.02 (3 - 18) | 9.07 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 0.107 |
sss_cognitive | 89 | 8.19 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 8.66 ± 3.92 (3 - 18) | 7.73 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 0.246 |
sss | 89 | 28.02 ± 10.46 (9 - 54) | 29.68 ± 10.39 (9 - 54) | 26.40 ± 10.38 (9 - 54) | 0.140 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.09 | 0.176 | 2.75, 3.44 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.069 | 0.247 | -0.553, 0.416 | 0.782 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.212 | 0.259 | -0.295, 0.719 | 0.415 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.278 | 0.368 | -0.444, 0.999 | 0.454 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.8 | 0.414 | 16.9, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.383 | 0.582 | -0.757, 1.52 | 0.511 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.287 | 0.569 | -1.40, 0.828 | 0.616 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.956 | 0.810 | -0.633, 2.54 | 0.243 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.752 | 27.9, 30.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.10 | 1.058 | -0.971, 3.18 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.430 | 0.783 | -1.10, 1.96 | 0.585 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.11 | 1.117 | -1.08, 3.30 | 0.325 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.302 | 11.4, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.333 | 0.424 | -0.498, 1.16 | 0.434 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.841 | 0.311 | -1.45, -0.232 | 0.009 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.946 | 0.444 | 0.076, 1.82 | 0.038 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.4 | 0.464 | 16.5, 18.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.347 | 0.653 | -0.932, 1.63 | 0.596 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.677 | 0.523 | -1.70, 0.348 | 0.201 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.58 | 0.746 | 0.121, 3.05 | 0.038 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.422 | 12.1, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.290 | 0.594 | -0.874, 1.45 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.212 | 0.423 | -0.617, 1.04 | 0.619 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.11 | 0.604 | -0.071, 2.30 | 0.071 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.345 | 9.66, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.941 | 0.485 | -1.89, 0.010 | 0.055 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.594 | 0.435 | -1.45, 0.258 | 0.178 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.74 | 0.620 | 0.525, 2.95 | 0.007 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 32.1 | 1.456 | 29.3, 35.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.07 | 2.047 | -7.08, 0.943 | 0.137 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.188 | 1.129 | -2.02, 2.40 | 0.869 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.79 | 1.612 | -4.95, 1.37 | 0.272 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.741 | 21.0, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.367 | 1.042 | -1.68, 2.41 | 0.726 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.418 | 0.650 | -1.69, 0.856 | 0.523 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.156 | 0.928 | -1.97, 1.66 | 0.867 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.0 | 0.892 | 23.3, 26.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.27 | 1.254 | -1.19, 3.73 | 0.315 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.26 | 0.845 | -2.91, 0.399 | 0.143 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.58 | 1.206 | -0.787, 3.94 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 1.038 | 16.7, 20.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.07 | 1.460 | 0.210, 5.93 | 0.038 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.754 | 1.172 | -1.54, 3.05 | 0.523 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.099 | 1.672 | -3.18, 3.38 | 0.953 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.051 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.560 | 9.54, 11.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.897 | 0.788 | -0.647, 2.44 | 0.258 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.410 | 0.536 | -0.640, 1.46 | 0.447 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.518 | 0.765 | -2.02, 0.981 | 0.501 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.837 | 13.4, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.289 | 1.178 | -2.60, 2.02 | 0.807 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.707 | 0.923 | -1.10, 2.52 | 0.447 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.413 | 1.317 | -2.99, 2.17 | 0.755 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.4 | 0.948 | 19.6, 23.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.990 | 1.334 | -1.62, 3.60 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.489 | 0.990 | -1.45, 2.43 | 0.623 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.067 | 1.413 | -2.84, 2.70 | 0.962 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.668 | 14.8, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.820 | 0.939 | -1.02, 2.66 | 0.385 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.080 | 0.702 | -1.30, 1.45 | 0.910 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.15 | 1.001 | -0.816, 3.11 | 0.257 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.433 | 12.4, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.883 | 0.608 | -0.309, 2.08 | 0.149 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.865 | 0.508 | -1.86, 0.130 | 0.094 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.03 | 0.724 | -0.393, 2.45 | 0.161 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.055 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.4 | 0.445 | 15.6, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.28 | 0.626 | 0.052, 2.51 | 0.043 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.038 | 0.482 | -0.983, 0.907 | 0.937 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.507 | 0.688 | -0.841, 1.86 | 0.464 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.060 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.5 | 0.469 | 10.6, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.08 | 0.659 | 0.786, 3.37 | 0.002 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.855 | 0.454 | -0.035, 1.74 | 0.065 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.465 | 0.648 | -1.74, 0.806 | 0.477 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.095 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.830 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.36 | 1.167 | 1.07, 5.64 | 0.005 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.762 | 0.794 | -0.794, 2.32 | 0.342 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.118 | 1.133 | -2.10, 2.34 | 0.918 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.091 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 1.401 | 25.1, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.82 | 1.970 | -5.68, 2.04 | 0.358 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 1.252 | -1.33, 3.57 | 0.375 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.52 | 1.788 | -6.02, 0.987 | 0.165 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.6 | 0.733 | 12.1, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.65 | 1.031 | -0.368, 3.68 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.166 | 0.738 | -1.28, 1.61 | 0.822 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.542 | 1.053 | -1.52, 2.61 | 0.609 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.9 | 0.581 | 14.8, 17.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.817 | -0.556, 2.65 | 0.203 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.211 | 0.581 | -0.927, 1.35 | 0.718 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.246 | 0.829 | -1.87, 1.38 | 0.768 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.5 | 1.242 | 27.1, 31.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.70 | 1.746 | -0.722, 6.12 | 0.125 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.372 | 1.207 | -1.99, 2.74 | 0.759 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.305 | 1.723 | -3.07, 3.68 | 0.860 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.212 | 12.5, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.576 | 0.298 | -1.16, 0.008 | 0.055 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.050 | 0.318 | -0.673, 0.572 | 0.874 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.436 | 0.452 | -0.450, 1.32 | 0.340 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.493 | 14.0, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.290 | 0.693 | -1.07, 1.65 | 0.676 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.221 | 0.572 | -1.34, 0.901 | 0.700 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.164 | 0.817 | -1.76, 1.44 | 0.842 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.623 | 12.0, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.462 | 0.876 | -1.26, 2.18 | 0.599 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.088 | 0.686 | -1.26, 1.43 | 0.898 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.037 | 0.979 | -1.96, 1.88 | 0.970 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.000 | 26.2, 30.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.752 | 1.406 | -2.00, 3.51 | 0.594 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.136 | 1.112 | -2.32, 2.04 | 0.903 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.198 | 1.587 | -3.31, 2.91 | 0.901 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.623 | 17.6, 20.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.877 | -0.691, 2.75 | 0.244 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.045 | 0.572 | -1.17, 1.08 | 0.937 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.285 | 0.817 | -1.89, 1.32 | 0.729 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.382 | 13.6, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.636 | 0.537 | -0.415, 1.69 | 0.238 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.020 | 0.497 | -0.995, 0.955 | 0.968 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.187 | 0.709 | -1.20, 1.58 | 0.793 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.459 | 11.5, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.92 | 0.645 | -3.18, -0.656 | 0.004 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.563 | 0.472 | -1.49, 0.363 | 0.239 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.779 | 0.674 | -0.542, 2.10 | 0.253 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.073 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.537 | 9.56, 11.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.01 | 0.755 | -2.49, 0.466 | 0.182 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.045 | 0.518 | -1.06, 0.969 | 0.931 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.07 | 0.739 | -2.52, 0.379 | 0.154 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.571 | 9.29, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.34 | 0.803 | -2.92, 0.230 | 0.097 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.161 | 0.580 | -1.30, 0.977 | 0.783 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.634 | 0.828 | -2.26, 0.989 | 0.447 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.66 | 0.555 | 7.57, 9.75 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.926 | 0.781 | -2.46, 0.604 | 0.238 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.909 | 0.501 | -0.074, 1.89 | 0.076 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.76 | 0.716 | -3.16, -0.353 | 0.018 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.536 | 26.7, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.28 | 2.160 | -7.51, 0.951 | 0.132 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.737 | 1.351 | -1.91, 3.38 | 0.587 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.45 | 1.929 | -7.23, 0.331 | 0.079 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.75, 3.44], t(130) = 17.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.42], t(130) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.72], t(130) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.61])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.00], t(130) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.75 (95% CI [16.94, 18.56], t(130) = 42.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.52], t(130) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.83], t(130) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.54], t(130) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.93])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.41 (95% CI [27.93, 30.88], t(130) = 39.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.97, 3.18], t(130) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.96], t(130) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-1.08, 3.30], t(130) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [11.41, 12.59], t(130) = 39.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.16], t(130) = 0.79, p = 0.432; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.45, -0.23], t(130) = -2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [0.08, 1.82], t(130) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.04, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.36 (95% CI [16.45, 18.27], t(130) = 37.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.63], t(130) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.70, 0.35], t(130) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [0.12, 3.05], t(130) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.04, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.95 (95% CI [12.13, 13.78], t(130) = 30.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.45], t(130) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.04], t(130) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.30], t(130) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.34 (95% CI [9.66, 11.02], t(130) = 29.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.89, 0.01], t(130) = -1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.83, 4.52e-03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.26], t(130) = -1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [0.53, 2.95], t(130) = 2.81, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.23, 1.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 32.14 (95% CI [29.28, 34.99], t(130) = 22.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.07, 95% CI [-7.08, 0.94], t(130) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.02, 2.40], t(130) = 0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-4.95, 1.37], t(130) = -1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.50 (95% CI [21.05, 23.95], t(130) = 30.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.41], t(130) = 0.35, p = 0.725; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.86], t(130) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.97, 1.66], t(130) = -0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.00 (95% CI [23.25, 26.75], t(130) = 28.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.73], t(130) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.91, 0.40], t(130) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [-0.79, 3.94], t(130) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.75 (95% CI [16.71, 20.79], t(130) = 18.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.07, 95% CI [0.21, 5.93], t(130) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.03, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.05], t(130) = 0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-3.18, 3.38], t(130) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.64 (95% CI [9.54, 11.73], t(130) = 18.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.44], t(130) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.46], t(130) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.98], t(130) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.00 (95% CI [13.36, 16.64], t(130) = 17.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.02], t(130) = -0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.52], t(130) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.99, 2.17], t(130) = -0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.43 (95% CI [19.57, 23.29], t(130) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.62, 3.60], t(130) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.43], t(130) = 0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.70], t(130) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.80, 17.42], t(130) = 24.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.66], t(130) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.45], t(130) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.82, 3.11], t(130) = 1.14, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.40, 14.10], t(130) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.08], t(130) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.86, 0.13], t(130) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.45], t(130) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.43 (95% CI [15.56, 17.30], t(130) = 36.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.05, 2.51], t(130) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [0.02, 0.82])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.91], t(130) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.86], t(130) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.48 (95% CI [10.56, 12.40], t(130) = 24.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.08, 95% CI [0.79, 3.37], t(130) = 3.15, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.24, 1.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.74], t(130) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.81], t(130) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.91 (95% CI [26.28, 29.54], t(130) = 33.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.36, 95% CI [1.07, 5.64], t(130) = 2.88, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [0.19, 0.98])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.32], t(130) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-2.10, 2.34], t(130) = 0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.09, 30.59], t(130) = 19.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-5.68, 2.04], t(130) = -0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.33, 3.57], t(130) = 0.90, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.52, 95% CI [-6.02, 0.99], t(130) = -1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.57 (95% CI [12.13, 15.01], t(130) = 18.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-0.37, 3.68], t(130) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.61], t(130) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.61], t(130) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.93 (95% CI [14.79, 17.07], t(130) = 27.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.65], t(130) = 1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.35], t(130) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.38], t(130) = -0.30, p = 0.767; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.50 (95% CI [27.07, 31.93], t(130) = 23.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.70, 95% CI [-0.72, 6.12], t(130) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.74], t(130) = 0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.68], t(130) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.52, 13.35], t(130) = 61.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.16, 7.68e-03], t(130) = -1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.83, 5.48e-03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.57], t(130) = -0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.32], t(130) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.94])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [13.97, 15.90], t(130) = 30.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.65], t(130) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.90], t(130) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.76, 1.44], t(130) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.23 (95% CI [12.01, 14.45], t(130) = 21.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.18], t(130) = 0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.43], t(130) = 0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.88], t(130) = -0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = -9.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.16 (95% CI [26.20, 30.12], t(130) = 28.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.51], t(130) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.32, 2.04], t(130) = -0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-3.31, 2.91], t(130) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.77 (95% CI [17.55, 19.99], t(130) = 30.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.75], t(130) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.08], t(130) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.32], t(130) = -0.35, p = 0.728; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.62, 15.11], t(130) = 37.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.69], t(130) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.95], t(130) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -7.99e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.58], t(130) = 0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.51, 13.31], t(130) = 27.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.18, -0.66], t(130) = -2.98, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.01, -0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.36], t(130) = -1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.10], t(130) = 1.16, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.56, 11.67], t(130) = 19.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.01, 95% CI [-2.49, 0.47], t(130) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.97], t(130) = -0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.38], t(130) = -1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.41 (95% CI [9.29, 11.53], t(130) = 18.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-2.92, 0.23], t(130) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.98], t(130) = -0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.26, 0.99], t(130) = -0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.66 (95% CI [7.57, 9.75], t(130) = 15.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.46, 0.60], t(130) = -1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.89], t(130) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-3.16, -0.35], t(130) = -2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.68 (95% CI [26.67, 32.69], t(130) = 19.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.28, 95% CI [-7.51, 0.95], t(130) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.38], t(130) = 0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.45, 95% CI [-7.23, 0.33], t(130) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 429.472 | 438.210 | -211.736 | 423.472 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 431.285 | 448.761 | -209.642 | 419.285 | 4.187 | 3 | 0.242 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 657.450 | 666.188 | -325.725 | 651.450 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 660.189 | 677.665 | -324.095 | 648.189 | 3.261 | 3 | 0.353 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 801.724 | 810.462 | -397.862 | 795.724 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 801.724 | 819.200 | -394.862 | 789.724 | 6.000 | 3 | 0.112 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 555.648 | 564.386 | -274.824 | 549.648 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 552.358 | 569.834 | -270.179 | 540.358 | 9.290 | 3 | 0.026 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 677.148 | 685.886 | -335.574 | 671.148 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 676.877 | 694.353 | -332.439 | 664.877 | 6.271 | 3 | 0.099 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 646.047 | 654.785 | -320.023 | 640.047 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 641.489 | 658.965 | -314.745 | 629.489 | 10.557 | 3 | 0.014 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 607.859 | 616.597 | -300.930 | 601.859 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 604.761 | 622.237 | -296.380 | 592.761 | 9.098 | 3 | 0.028 |
symptom | null | 3 | 955.124 | 963.862 | -474.562 | 949.124 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 955.957 | 973.433 | -471.979 | 943.957 | 5.167 | 3 | 0.160 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 778.398 | 787.136 | -386.199 | 772.398 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 783.092 | 800.568 | -385.546 | 771.092 | 1.306 | 3 | 0.728 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 838.515 | 847.253 | -416.258 | 832.515 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 840.123 | 857.599 | -414.062 | 828.123 | 4.392 | 3 | 0.222 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 895.956 | 904.694 | -444.978 | 889.956 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 896.026 | 913.502 | -442.013 | 884.026 | 5.929 | 3 | 0.115 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 710.115 | 718.853 | -352.058 | 704.115 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 714.479 | 731.955 | -351.239 | 702.479 | 1.636 | 3 | 0.651 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 830.433 | 839.171 | -412.216 | 824.433 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 835.586 | 853.062 | -411.793 | 823.586 | 0.847 | 3 | 0.838 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 860.041 | 868.778 | -427.020 | 854.041 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 865.023 | 882.499 | -426.512 | 853.023 | 1.017 | 3 | 0.797 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 768.783 | 777.521 | -381.392 | 762.783 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 770.163 | 787.639 | -379.081 | 758.163 | 4.620 | 3 | 0.202 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 662.276 | 671.014 | -328.138 | 656.276 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 660.901 | 678.377 | -324.450 | 648.901 | 7.376 | 3 | 0.061 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 662.962 | 671.700 | -328.481 | 656.962 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 662.288 | 679.764 | -325.144 | 650.288 | 6.674 | 3 | 0.083 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 674.331 | 683.069 | -334.165 | 668.331 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 667.086 | 684.562 | -327.543 | 655.086 | 13.245 | 3 | 0.004 |
els | null | 3 | 826.253 | 834.991 | -410.127 | 820.253 | |||
els | random | 6 | 821.322 | 838.798 | -404.661 | 809.322 | 10.931 | 3 | 0.012 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 955.799 | 964.537 | -474.900 | 949.799 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 957.991 | 975.467 | -472.996 | 945.991 | 3.808 | 3 | 0.283 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 790.358 | 799.096 | -392.179 | 784.358 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 792.036 | 809.512 | -390.018 | 780.036 | 4.322 | 3 | 0.229 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 723.867 | 732.605 | -358.933 | 717.867 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 728.153 | 745.629 | -358.076 | 716.153 | 1.714 | 3 | 0.634 |
shs | null | 3 | 929.526 | 938.264 | -461.763 | 923.526 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 932.347 | 949.823 | -460.174 | 920.347 | 3.178 | 3 | 0.365 |
esteem | null | 3 | 481.403 | 490.141 | -237.701 | 475.403 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 483.035 | 500.511 | -235.518 | 471.035 | 4.367 | 3 | 0.224 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 690.413 | 699.151 | -342.207 | 684.413 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 695.660 | 713.136 | -341.830 | 683.660 | 0.754 | 3 | 0.861 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 749.406 | 758.144 | -371.703 | 743.406 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 755.081 | 772.557 | -371.541 | 743.081 | 0.325 | 3 | 0.955 |
mlq | null | 3 | 878.964 | 887.702 | -436.482 | 872.964 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 884.574 | 902.050 | -436.287 | 872.574 | 0.390 | 3 | 0.942 |
empower | null | 3 | 735.634 | 744.372 | -364.817 | 729.634 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 740.007 | 757.483 | -364.004 | 728.007 | 1.627 | 3 | 0.653 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 630.639 | 639.377 | -312.320 | 624.639 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 634.506 | 651.982 | -311.253 | 622.506 | 2.134 | 3 | 0.545 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 669.398 | 678.136 | -331.699 | 663.398 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 666.301 | 683.777 | -327.151 | 654.301 | 9.097 | 3 | 0.028 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 705.291 | 714.029 | -349.646 | 699.291 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 703.562 | 721.038 | -345.781 | 691.562 | 7.729 | 3 | 0.052 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 724.491 | 733.228 | -359.245 | 718.491 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 724.681 | 742.157 | -356.341 | 712.681 | 5.809 | 3 | 0.121 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 710.422 | 719.160 | -352.211 | 704.422 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 707.058 | 724.534 | -347.529 | 695.058 | 9.364 | 3 | 0.025 |
sss | null | 3 | 983.814 | 992.552 | -488.907 | 977.814 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 981.556 | 999.032 | -484.778 | 969.556 | 8.258 | 3 | 0.041 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 44 | 3.09 ± 1.17 | 45 | 3.02 ± 1.17 | 0.782 | 0.070 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 24 | 3.30 ± 1.15 | -0.217 | 23 | 3.51 ± 1.15 | -0.501 | 0.535 | -0.214 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 44 | 17.75 ± 2.75 | 45 | 18.13 ± 2.75 | 0.511 | -0.181 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 24 | 17.46 ± 2.66 | 0.135 | 23 | 18.80 ± 2.65 | -0.316 | 0.087 | -0.632 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 44 | 29.41 ± 4.99 | 45 | 30.51 ± 4.99 | 0.300 | -0.391 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 24 | 29.84 ± 4.45 | -0.153 | 23 | 32.05 ± 4.40 | -0.547 | 0.089 | -0.785 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 44 | 12.00 ± 2.00 | 45 | 12.33 ± 2.00 | 0.434 | -0.298 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 24 | 11.16 ± 1.78 | 0.752 | 23 | 12.44 ± 1.76 | -0.094 | 0.014 | -1.145 |
ras_goal | 1st | 44 | 17.36 ± 3.08 | 45 | 17.71 ± 3.08 | 0.596 | -0.183 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 24 | 16.69 ± 2.81 | 0.357 | 23 | 18.62 ± 2.79 | -0.479 | 0.019 | -1.019 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 44 | 12.95 ± 2.80 | 45 | 13.24 ± 2.80 | 0.626 | -0.191 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 24 | 13.17 ± 2.47 | -0.140 | 23 | 14.57 ± 2.44 | -0.873 | 0.052 | -0.925 |
ras_domination | 1st | 44 | 10.34 ± 2.29 | 45 | 9.40 ± 2.29 | 0.055 | 0.589 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 24 | 9.75 ± 2.16 | 0.372 | 23 | 10.55 ± 2.15 | -0.718 | 0.206 | -0.501 |
symptom | 1st | 44 | 32.14 ± 9.66 | 45 | 29.07 ± 9.66 | 0.137 | 0.770 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 24 | 32.32 ± 8.02 | -0.047 | 23 | 27.46 ± 7.88 | 0.402 | 0.038 | 1.219 |
slof_work | 1st | 44 | 22.50 ± 4.92 | 45 | 22.87 ± 4.92 | 0.726 | -0.159 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 24 | 22.08 ± 4.19 | 0.181 | 23 | 22.29 ± 4.13 | 0.248 | 0.862 | -0.091 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 44 | 25.00 ± 5.92 | 45 | 26.27 ± 5.92 | 0.315 | -0.420 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 24 | 23.74 ± 5.14 | 0.417 | 23 | 26.59 ± 5.08 | -0.106 | 0.059 | -0.943 |
satisfaction | 1st | 44 | 18.75 ± 6.89 | 45 | 21.82 ± 6.89 | 0.038 | -0.723 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 24 | 19.50 ± 6.28 | -0.177 | 23 | 22.67 ± 6.24 | -0.201 | 0.085 | -0.746 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 44 | 10.64 ± 3.72 | 45 | 11.53 ± 3.72 | 0.258 | -0.468 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 24 | 11.05 ± 3.24 | -0.214 | 23 | 11.43 ± 3.20 | 0.056 | 0.687 | -0.198 |
mhc_social | 1st | 44 | 15.00 ± 5.55 | 45 | 14.71 ± 5.55 | 0.807 | 0.087 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 24 | 15.71 ± 5.03 | -0.212 | 23 | 15.00 ± 4.99 | -0.088 | 0.632 | 0.210 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 44 | 21.43 ± 6.29 | 45 | 22.42 ± 6.29 | 0.459 | -0.278 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 24 | 21.92 ± 5.61 | -0.137 | 23 | 22.84 ± 5.56 | -0.118 | 0.572 | -0.259 |
resilisnce | 1st | 44 | 16.11 ± 4.43 | 45 | 16.93 ± 4.43 | 0.385 | -0.325 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 24 | 16.19 ± 3.96 | -0.032 | 23 | 18.16 ± 3.92 | -0.485 | 0.089 | -0.778 |
social_provision | 1st | 44 | 13.25 ± 2.87 | 45 | 14.13 ± 2.87 | 0.149 | -0.478 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 24 | 12.39 ± 2.65 | 0.468 | 23 | 14.30 ± 2.63 | -0.088 | 0.014 | -1.034 |
els_value_living | 1st | 44 | 16.43 ± 2.95 | 45 | 17.71 ± 2.95 | 0.043 | -0.735 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 24 | 16.39 ± 2.66 | 0.022 | 23 | 18.18 ± 2.64 | -0.270 | 0.022 | -1.027 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 44 | 11.48 ± 3.11 | 45 | 13.56 ± 3.11 | 0.002 | -1.280 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 24 | 12.33 ± 2.72 | -0.526 | 23 | 13.95 ± 2.68 | -0.240 | 0.043 | -0.994 |
els | 1st | 44 | 27.91 ± 5.50 | 45 | 31.27 ± 5.50 | 0.005 | -1.184 | ||
els | 2nd | 24 | 28.67 ± 4.79 | -0.269 | 23 | 32.15 ± 4.74 | -0.310 | 0.014 | -1.225 |
social_connect | 1st | 44 | 27.84 ± 9.29 | 45 | 26.02 ± 9.29 | 0.358 | 0.408 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 24 | 28.96 ± 7.96 | -0.252 | 23 | 24.63 ± 7.85 | 0.313 | 0.062 | 0.973 |
shs_agency | 1st | 44 | 13.57 ± 4.87 | 45 | 15.22 ± 4.87 | 0.112 | -0.625 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 24 | 13.73 ± 4.29 | -0.063 | 23 | 15.93 ± 4.25 | -0.268 | 0.080 | -0.830 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 44 | 15.93 ± 3.85 | 45 | 16.98 ± 3.85 | 0.203 | -0.502 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 24 | 16.14 ± 3.40 | -0.101 | 23 | 16.94 ± 3.36 | 0.017 | 0.418 | -0.384 |
shs | 1st | 44 | 29.50 ± 8.24 | 45 | 32.20 ± 8.24 | 0.125 | -0.625 | ||
shs | 2nd | 24 | 29.87 ± 7.20 | -0.086 | 23 | 32.88 ± 7.12 | -0.157 | 0.153 | -0.696 |
esteem | 1st | 44 | 12.93 ± 1.41 | 45 | 12.36 ± 1.41 | 0.055 | 0.478 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 24 | 12.88 ± 1.39 | 0.042 | 23 | 12.74 ± 1.39 | -0.320 | 0.731 | 0.116 |
mlq_search | 1st | 44 | 14.93 ± 3.27 | 45 | 15.22 ± 3.27 | 0.676 | -0.140 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 24 | 14.71 ± 3.01 | 0.106 | 23 | 14.84 ± 2.99 | 0.185 | 0.885 | -0.061 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 44 | 13.23 ± 4.13 | 45 | 13.69 ± 4.13 | 0.599 | -0.186 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 24 | 13.32 ± 3.74 | -0.036 | 23 | 13.74 ± 3.71 | -0.021 | 0.697 | -0.171 |
mlq | 1st | 44 | 28.16 ± 6.63 | 45 | 28.91 ± 6.63 | 0.594 | -0.187 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 24 | 28.02 ± 6.02 | 0.034 | 23 | 28.58 ± 5.98 | 0.083 | 0.752 | -0.138 |
empower | 1st | 44 | 18.77 ± 4.14 | 45 | 19.80 ± 4.14 | 0.244 | -0.504 | ||
empower | 2nd | 24 | 18.73 ± 3.56 | 0.022 | 23 | 19.47 ± 3.52 | 0.162 | 0.473 | -0.364 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 44 | 14.36 ± 2.53 | 45 | 15.00 ± 2.53 | 0.238 | -0.347 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 24 | 14.34 ± 2.41 | 0.011 | 23 | 15.17 ± 2.40 | -0.091 | 0.243 | -0.448 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 44 | 12.41 ± 3.04 | 45 | 10.49 ± 3.04 | 0.004 | 1.131 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 24 | 11.85 ± 2.70 | 0.331 | 23 | 10.71 ± 2.68 | -0.128 | 0.148 | 0.672 |
sss_affective | 1st | 44 | 10.61 ± 3.56 | 45 | 9.60 ± 3.56 | 0.182 | 0.548 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 24 | 10.57 ± 3.11 | 0.025 | 23 | 8.48 ± 3.07 | 0.602 | 0.022 | 1.126 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 44 | 10.41 ± 3.79 | 45 | 9.07 ± 3.79 | 0.097 | 0.644 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 24 | 10.25 ± 3.35 | 0.077 | 23 | 8.27 ± 3.32 | 0.382 | 0.044 | 0.949 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 44 | 8.66 ± 3.68 | 45 | 7.73 ± 3.68 | 0.238 | 0.519 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 24 | 9.57 ± 3.16 | -0.509 | 23 | 6.89 ± 3.12 | 0.475 | 0.004 | 1.503 |
sss | 1st | 44 | 29.68 ± 10.19 | 45 | 26.40 ± 10.19 | 0.132 | 0.684 | ||
sss | 2nd | 24 | 30.42 ± 8.69 | -0.154 | 23 | 23.69 ± 8.57 | 0.565 | 0.008 | 1.402 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(124.66) = -0.28, p = 0.782, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.42)
2st
t(131.22) = 0.62, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.87)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(119.34) = 0.66, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.54)
2st
t(131.10) = 1.73, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.19 to 2.87)
ras_confidence
1st
t(103.44) = 1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.00 to 3.20)
2st
t(131.91) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.76)
ras_willingness
1st
t(103.11) = 0.79, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.17)
2st
t(131.87) = 2.48, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.30)
ras_goal
1st
t(106.95) = 0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.64)
2st
t(131.95) = 2.37, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.55)
ras_reliance
1st
t(102.01) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.47)
2st
t(131.66) = 1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.82)
ras_domination
1st
t(113.21) = -1.94, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.02)
2st
t(131.41) = 1.27, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.04)
symptom
1st
t(95.32) = -1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-7.13 to 0.99)
2st
t(125.73) = -2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-9.45 to -0.27)
slof_work
1st
t(98.00) = 0.35, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.43)
2st
t(129.47) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.19 to 2.61)
slof_relationship
1st
t(100.15) = 1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.76)
2st
t(131.00) = 1.91, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.10 to 5.79)
satisfaction
1st
t(107.03) = 2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.18 to 5.97)
2st
t(131.95) = 1.74, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.44 to 6.78)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(100.47) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.46)
2st
t(131.15) = 0.40, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.24)
mhc_social
1st
t(105.90) = -0.25, p = 0.807, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.62 to 2.05)
2st
t(131.99) = -0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.59 to 2.19)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(103.58) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.65 to 3.64)
2st
t(131.92) = 0.57, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.30 to 4.15)
resilisnce
1st
t(103.83) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.68)
2st
t(131.94) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.31 to 4.24)
social_provision
1st
t(109.04) = 1.45, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.09)
2st
t(131.79) = 2.48, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (0.39 to 3.43)
els_value_living
1st
t(105.11) = 2.04, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.52)
2st
t(132.00) = 2.31, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (0.26 to 3.32)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(100.86) = 3.15, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -1.28, 95% CI (0.77 to 3.39)
2st
t(131.31) = 2.05, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.17)
els
1st
t(100.47) = 2.88, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -1.18, 95% CI (1.04 to 5.67)
2st
t(131.14) = 2.50, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.23, 95% CI (0.73 to 6.23)
social_connect
1st
t(98.49) = -0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-5.73 to 2.09)
2st
t(129.91) = -1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-8.90 to 0.23)
shs_agency
1st
t(102.17) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.39 to 3.70)
2st
t(131.70) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.27 to 4.66)
shs_pathway
1st
t(101.94) = 1.28, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.67)
2st
t(131.64) = 0.81, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.75)
shs
1st
t(100.99) = 1.55, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.76 to 6.16)
2st
t(131.36) = 1.44, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-1.13 to 7.14)
esteem
1st
t(126.13) = -1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.01)
2st
t(131.33) = -0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.66)
mlq_search
1st
t(108.47) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.66)
2st
t(131.84) = 0.14, p = 0.885, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.86)
mlq_presence
1st
t(105.84) = 0.53, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.20)
2st
t(131.99) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.58)
mlq
1st
t(106.32) = 0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.54)
2st
t(131.98) = 0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.91 to 4.02)
empower
1st
t(99.22) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.77)
2st
t(130.46) = 0.72, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.79)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(115.52) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.70)
2st
t(131.24) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.21)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(103.05) = -2.98, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.20 to -0.64)
2st
t(131.86) = -1.45, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.41)
sss_affective
1st
t(100.73) = -1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.51 to 0.48)
2st
t(131.26) = -2.31, p = 0.022, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.87 to -0.30)
sss_behavior
1st
t(102.57) = -1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.93 to 0.25)
2st
t(131.78) = -2.03, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.90 to -0.05)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(98.78) = -1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.47 to 0.62)
2st
t(130.14) = -2.93, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.50, 95% CI (-4.49 to -0.87)
sss
1st
t(98.07) = -1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-7.57 to 1.00)
2st
t(129.54) = -2.67, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 1.40, 95% CI (-11.71 to -1.75)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(66.90) = 1.85, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.02)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(62.77) = 1.15, p = 0.509, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.83)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(53.30) = 1.92, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.07 to 3.14)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(53.12) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.74)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(55.19) = 1.70, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.98)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(52.54) = 3.06, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.46 to 2.19)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(58.80) = 2.58, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.04)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(49.11) = -1.39, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.92 to 0.72)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(50.47) = -0.86, p = 0.784, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.76)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(51.57) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.05)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(55.24) = 0.71, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.55 to 3.26)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(51.74) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.99)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(54.62) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.19)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(53.37) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.61 to 2.45)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(53.50) = 1.71, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.67)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(56.36) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.20)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(54.19) = 0.95, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.46)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(51.94) = 0.84, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.32)
els
1st vs 2st
t(51.74) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.51)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(50.72) = -1.09, p = 0.562, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.97 to 1.18)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(52.63) = 0.94, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.22)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(52.50) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.16)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(52.01) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.80 to 3.15)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(68.26) = 1.19, p = 0.477, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.03)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(56.04) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.79)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(54.59) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.46)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(54.85) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.61 to 1.95)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(51.09) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.85)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(60.23) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.18)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(53.09) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.19)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(51.87) = -2.11, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.18 to -0.05)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(52.84) = -1.34, p = 0.373, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.40)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(50.87) = -1.65, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.18)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(50.51) = -1.96, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.49 to 0.06)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(65.13) = 0.81, p = 0.837, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.73)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(61.35) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.86)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(52.67) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.01)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(52.50) = -2.69, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-1.47 to -0.21)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(54.41) = -1.29, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.38)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(51.97) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.06)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(57.71) = -1.36, p = 0.359, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.28)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(48.81) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.09 to 2.46)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(50.06) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.89)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(51.08) = -1.48, p = 0.289, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.96 to 0.44)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(54.45) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.61 to 3.11)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(51.23) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.49)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(53.88) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.57)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(52.74) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.48)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(52.85) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.49)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(55.48) = -1.69, p = 0.192, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.16)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(53.49) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.93)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(51.42) = 1.88, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.77)
els
1st vs 2st
t(51.23) = 0.96, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.84 to 2.36)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(50.29) = 0.89, p = 0.753, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.40 to 3.64)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(52.05) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.65)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(51.94) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.38)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(51.48) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.80)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(66.37) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.59)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(55.18) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.93)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(53.85) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.47)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(54.09) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.10)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(50.64) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.11)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(59.02) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.98)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(52.48) = -1.19, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.39)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(51.35) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.00)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(52.24) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.01)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(50.43) = 1.81, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.92)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(50.10) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.98 to 3.46)
Plot
